Finalize Migration

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It discloses idempotency ('Re-run it any time') and the consistency gate, but it does not describe whether files are overwritten, what happens on gate failure, or any side effects beyond writing output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: main action, report contents, and idempotency. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no annotations and an output schema, so the description covers core behavior (writes artifacts, consistency gate, idempotency). Missing are prerequisites (e.g., that submissions should already be recorded), failure behavior if the gate fails, and how output files relate to the run directory.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain run_dir or now. The term 'run's' implies run_dir, but no format, meaning, or relationship to current submissions is provided, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: writes the run's manifest, report, and adaptation change log under output/. It also details the report's contents and mentions the consistency gate, which distinguishes it from siblings like generate_migration_report or start_migration.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context: the tool finalizes a run's artifacts and can be re-run at any time to reflect current submissions. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so not a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.